Yes, they think we are really stupid!

| 86 Comments

A few days ago I asked just how stupid Discovery Institute Fellow Jonathan Wells thought we were, when he posted an article that could be refuted with a few minutes reading Wikipedia. Mr. Wells has “replied” to that article, and the answer is in. He thinks we are really stupid. In that post he claims I hate him.

And links to my post.

Where you can read it from beginning to end and find neither skerrick nor iota of hate. Unless hate has been recently redefined to mean “comprehensively refuted”. Tellingly, he doesn’t address the main issue, that anyone with access to Wikipedia could see that he is writing nonsense. Anyone reading his “response” just has to spend a moment reading my article to see how completely he avoids the issue. Even having the senior author of the study he criticises plainly state that Darwinian evolution guided key aspects of their study doesn’t phase him, he simply tires to redefine “selection” out of evolutionary theory. Finally, he restates his question:

Wells Wrote:

How, exactly, is Darwinian evolution essential to understanding and overcoming antibiotic resistance — as the Darwinists claim it is?

Mr. Wells, rather than making up stories that people hate you, you could re-read my post, this time for comprehension. Or you could just spend a few minutes on Wikipedia.

(PS Mr. Wells, Are you going to admit that Darwinists didn’t suppress Mendel’s work. Also, one mutation to convert a DD-peptidase to a beta-lactamase, in what way doesn’t that refute your claim that we have untestable hypotheses for the origins of antibiotic resistance genes?)

PZ Myers and Larry Moran have their own takes on the issue.

86 Comments

Hmm. Looking at this post and the previous one about Sal Cordova, it just occurred to me that the Liars for Jesus crowd have developed a new strategy: continue to regurgitate the same brainless crap over and over and over until the defenders of reality just get bored and walk away.

Sal, Johnny: HO HUM.

But at least they’re honest about one thing:

The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site.

Could it be…? Jonathan Wells is projecting as well as attempting to spread misinformation?

Unless hate has been recently redefined to mean “comprehensively refuted”.

Fundamentalists do often misuse the word “hate” when somebody merely disagrees with their beliefs, let alone when somebody disproves them.

Henry

Henry J:

Unless hate has been recently redefined to mean “comprehensively refuted”.

Fundamentalists do often misuse the word “hate” when somebody merely disagrees with their beliefs, let alone when somebody disproves them.

Henry

Hence the cdesign proponentists’ elaborate campaign of confusing and conflating “refusal to do science in order to be recognized as science” with “they’re persecuting us because we’re different”

Did he also claim you were “educated stupid”, thus rendering you incapable of comprehending a timecube, and you therefore “deserve death”? Or did he perhaps imply you were a pawn of the “Gangster Computer God Worldwide Secret Containment Policy”?

How long until these nutcases degenerate into total incoherent paranoid rambling? How many of them are already there?

Mr. Wells has “replied” to that article, and the answer is in. He thinks we are really stupid.

Actually, it’s his readers whom he thinks are stupid. ID advocates write with the assumption that their audience will never read much less understand the material they’re attacking. In this case, it really shows.

I really don’t hold a grudge against people believing in ghosts and fairies.. But why do they hold it against anyone who doesn’t?

So Wallace, anything to say about the ignorance portrayed here by ID proponents who sacrifice science and credibility for their faith?

I get the impression that he thinks we are really, really, stupid, as he steps further in it, trying to redefine genetic changes in populations and accompanying origin of species as creationist creation.

Except that the issue is not how existing enzymes can be altered, but how they originated in the first place. As in the case of whole organisms, mutation and selection can explain minor changes in existing species, but not the origin of species. Yet that’s what Darwin’s theory was supposedly about.

So whatever Wells is, he can’t be a biologist of any recognizable stripe, as he clearly misrepresents Darwin’s theory.

Ah, the “hate” fallacy. For example, asking an atheist “Why do you hate God?” (this seems to be one of the most common forms). Naturally, Fundamentalists cannot fathom that atheists actually don’t believe a god exists, therefore they must be doing it out of spite.

Similarly, when they claim you are spewing “hate” for refuting their arguments, it is because they cannot honestly think you really believe in this whole “science” nonsense, since obviously any right-thinking person would see that the Bible is absolutely 100% true (no matter what contortions of logic / extreme cognitive dissonance that entails).

A bit OT:

n the previous post, this guy called george said that SINEs do not prove common descent. As an undergrad currently studying SINEs ( I saw the PCR’s myself!) I find that remark unbearably odd. Here we have evidence of a few hundred bp long sequence, placed EXACTLY at the same genome locus with the exact same sequence in multiple species of cetacea and hippopotami. The odds of that happening by random mutation is.. Well, it’s not next to nothing, it IS nothing. It reminds me of all those “evolution is too improbable” arguments. How come it’s only possible to use those arguments when they’re favoring creationism?

I’m just dying to know how he’d explain it, because I honestly don’t see any other explanation for such homology (I shivered the first time I saw the PCR runs, honestly, I still find it hard to believe). Maybe I’m just being ignorant, but knowing the mechanism for SINE insertion, for the life of me, I simply cannot understand how anyone who isn’t utterly insane reject SINEs as evidence of common descent. (Of the two SINE-containing orders, at least!)

Well, I guess the IDers aren’t willing to cosign on those sines, so they just go off on a tangent.

J. Grybowski:

Ah, the “hate” fallacy. For example, asking an atheist “Why do you hate God?” (this seems to be one of the most common forms).

Perhaps the appropriate rejoinder should be, “Why do you hate Odin and Zeus?”

So Wallace, anything to say about the ignorance portrayed here by ID proponents who sacrifice science and credibility for their faith?

why insist on commentary from the peanut gallery?

just curious to see the inevitable spin?

Henry J:

Well, I guess the IDers aren’t willing to cosign on those sines, so they just go off on a tangent.

…because they’re secant proof of GodThe Designer. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

Mr Wells says:

The principal researcher in the French study disagrees, and >wrote to Musgrave’s blog that “we did indeed use Darwinian evolution within this work (something unusual in structural biology). In order to obtain an enzyme with increased stability (a critical point for structural studies), we used selective pressure to obtain mutants of the enzyme.”

Wells goes on to blather about how artificial selection has nothing to do with “Darwinism”, but more tellingly, he completely ignores the rest of what Frederic Dardel (the PI of the study in question) said:

As principal investigator of the study under discussion, I’d like to strongly support the view advocated this page [Ian Musgrave’s original blog]. In fact, I was completely amazed to see how our work has been misrepresented by M. Wells.

Emphasis added.

Yes, Christians do think you are stupid. While we have faith in the risen Savior Jesus Christ, evolutionists have faith in the dead prophet Darwin. I emphasize, DEAD! Not even Darwin’s followers claim he rose again like Jesus did, but they still have faith in him. What sense does that make?

Darwinian retards don’t understand that any environment where humans are involved to select traits such as in hospitals or farms raises the level of complex specified information and is no longer random chance. Even something like PCR which only makes more of the same DNA strands requites intelligent input, yet the Darwinian faithful think all life just randomly assembled even without intelligent humans to add Taq polymerase. What morons!

I’m a Christian and I think YOU are stupid P.G.

Pole Greaser:

Yes, Christians do think you are stupid. While we have faith in the risen Savior Jesus Christ, evolutionists have faith in the dead prophet Darwin. I emphasize, DEAD!

PG: what would you say to someone who both has faith in Jesus Christ, but accepts the scientific evidence for evolution? This are not, as you are suggesting, mutually exclusive categories.

You also might want to look up Colossians 4:5-6. Just a thought.

sorry: These are not mutually…

Pole Greaser:

Darwinian retards don’t understand that any environment where humans are involved to select traits such as in hospitals or farms raises the level of complex specified information and is no longer random chance.

Are you actually admitting that human selection pressure increases CSI? If so, then would it not follow that intense natural selection can do the same? Please explain why you see a distinction between so-called “artificial” selection and natural selection. As far as the organism is concerned, selection is selection.

Apparently, Pole Greaser thinks that bacteria know the difference between an environment in which the conditions are varied by people, and an environment in which the conditions are varied by natural forces. Or perhaps God evolves the bacteria when He sees His people vary the conditions, but not when His natural environment varies the conditions in pretty much the same way, just over a longer period of time.

oh, now I get why Pim wanted a response from Wallace.

his responses are slightly less insane than the Greaser’s.

frankly, you might as well ask John Davison what he “thinks”.

“You hate me! You really, really hate me!”

No Jonny, we don’t hate you. We can’t hate someone who we think is ridiculous.

The word you want is “fazes,” rather than “phases.” The former is a verb, the latter a noun, with entirely unrelated meanings.

Well, I guess the IDers aren’t willing to cosign on those sines, so they just go off on a tangent.

That was a good parabola of moral lesson. Such comical sections are wasted on creationists.

the dead prophet Darwin

Ah, sometimes the pole is really greased! Pity that it is impossible to make a similar parody of anti-creationists, because it is darn funny and deserve to be expanded on.

Pole Greaser said: Yes, Christians do think you are stupid.

And YOU are authorized to speak for ALL Xtians now ?

While we have faith in the risen Savior Jesus Christ, evolutionists have faith in the dead prophet Darwin. I emphasize, DEAD! Not even Darwin’s followers claim he rose again like Jesus did, but they still have faith in him. What sense does that make?

Since evolution is NOT a religion, and Darwin is NOT a prophet, PLENTY !

You seem to utilizing that festering equivocation of the word ‘faith’ - there’s the religoid meaning of “accept as true without or despite evidence on the word of The Authority”, vs the other meaning “demonstrated confidence”.

If my plumber Scotty has done excellent work for me in the past, and I state “I have faith in his abilities”, is that in any real way, shape, or form a RELIGIOUS statement of faith ?

Since evolution is evidence/reality based and NOT authority/fantasy based, the live/dead/undead status of Darwin is irrelevant.

Darwinian retards don’t understand that any environment where humans are involved to select traits such as in hospitals or farms raises the level of complex specified information and is no longer random chance.

And IDiots have yet to demonstrate HOW (or even IF) the presence of humans makes any frelling difference.

In other words, BACK UP THEIR WHINING WITH ACTUAL DATA.

You’ve invoked ye olde “Voodoo Information Transfer” delusion.

The silly idea that if a human was somehow involved in any way or any time, their intelligence/CSI somehow leaked into the system.

As natural selection isn’t random chance, your blitherings be moot.

And humans aren’t directly selecting FOR antibiotic resistance in hospitals - it would be better for the patients if the bacteria did NOT evolve resistance !

And, since ‘CSI’ can evolve, your blitherings be as irrelevant as the rest of your mis-, anti-, and un-informed opinions.

Even something like PCR which only makes more of the same DNA strands requites intelligent input, yet the Darwinian faithful think all life just randomly assembled even without intelligent humans to add Taq polymerase. What morons!

Yes, as you so vigorously demonstrate, IDiots, creationuts, theoloons, and everyone else who has to misrepresent the ToE truly are morons.

A bacteria dividing ‘only’ makes more of the same DNA strands, but does NOT require intelligent input; thus, REALITY refutes you.

Selection is not random; are you incapable of following any procedure of more than one step ?

Evolution step 1 : variations arise in a population. Step 2 : some variants are better at living long enough to reproduce. These variants become more common in later generations. End result - the APPEARANCE of design.

IDiot creationism step 1 : An unknown being somehow did something sometime in the past for some reason.

No, no. They don’t think we’re stupid. We think they’re stupid, because they prove it over and over again. They think we’re arrogant and elitist for pointing this out to them.

If Wells had stopped after the first two paragraphs and written no more to his post, the meaning and the content (the perceived and pertinent content) would not be changed in the least.

Pole Greaser, or Grasshopper, if I may, you fail to note a significant distinction between supporters of evolution and supporters of special creation. To get right to it, supporters of evolution neither worship Charles Darwin or the knowledge base that has come into being as a result of his thoughts and published works. Supporters of evolution respect, are instructed by, are led to insight by and on occasion are in awe at the results of evolutionary theory as applied to a close examination of the real world that is really around us and that is made out of the same material that we are.

A sense of awe need not be interpreted as communication from an invisible, supernatural spook. It is often, from my own experience, the feeling that accompanies integrating some novel and unexpected fact into an established model of something. (You do have small scale models of the world inside your head, don’t you know? They can be reliably compared to the real world upon the summoning of just a bit of courage.) It is a feeling of horizons receding and the ambient light brightening.

If I do covet anything like a miracle, it is that sensation that I find more transcendent or spiritual as any I have ever known. And buddy, I could name you a few.

Only by leaving yourself and becoming the other will you see how he lives. Then, Grasshopper, perhaps you will begin to learn.

(if this gets sent to the Bathroom Wall, I understand) I have a tough time taking seriously anyone with the user name Pole Greaser. It reminds me too much of anogenital scent marking behavior in the lemurs my spouse studies.

Well, I guess the IDers aren’t willing to cosign on those sines, so they just go off on a tangent.

That was a good parabola of moral lesson. Such comical sections are wasted on creationists.

Indeed: what with circular arguments, abuse of ellipses …

David Stanton:

PG,

So, your answer seems to be that there is no difference. That’s what I thought. You lose. The “bahrmin level” doesn’t make any difference. Whether the selection favors increased complexity or not desn’t make any difference. You’re just plain wrong, period. You can keep saying it all you want and it still won’t be true.

By the way, thanks for ignoring the questions that were supposed to be the topic of this thread. Now everyone can see your true motivation in posting nonsense here.

So, are you on record as stating anything can happen in random explosions? If so, why can’t we manufacture cars by blowing up a junk yard?

PG,

Still not able to define “ambient CSI” and “bahrmin”? And this is supposed to be a theory that will replace evolution?

Pole Greaser:

David Stanton:

PG,

So, your answer seems to be that there is no difference. That’s what I thought. You lose. The “bahrmin level” doesn’t make any difference. Whether the selection favors increased complexity or not desn’t make any difference. You’re just plain wrong, period. You can keep saying it all you want and it still won’t be true.

By the way, thanks for ignoring the questions that were supposed to be the topic of this thread. Now everyone can see your true motivation in posting nonsense here.

So, are you on record as stating anything can happen in random explosions? If so, why can’t we manufacture cars by blowing up a junk yard?

So, are you on record as stating that the concept of “reading comprehension” is beyond your feeble little mind?

Please. Please. Be nice to the minority of rational editors on Wikipedia and don’t send IDers and Creationists there. All the place needs are more IDiots editing articles. Arguing with those people – who must be given some credence as long as they can provide references because Wikipedia’s “neutral point-of-view” is not the scientific point of view – is a big part of what burned me out on the place.

why can’t we manufacture cars by blowing up a junk yard?

Because there aren’t enough junk yards, and manufacturing has to be cost effective. Just ask the victims of shortages of “orphan drugs.”

Pole Greaser wrote:

Well, that depends on whether the Bahrmin level. A house or can burn down by arson or lightning could strike it and it would make no difference to the house. By contrast, in order to build the house you need CSI, not just energy. No matter how big of an explosion you make a new house will not spontaneously assemble.

Baramin (note the correct spelling) is just a made up creationist term, not a scientific one, like species. CSI is also a made up term which is basically an improbability calculation that your creos love to lie about. Building homes only requires someone to build them. Building biological organisms requires some form of reproduction, (I prefer sexual but I am only human). Your analogy is obviously laughable since houses aren’t organisms that reproduce and therefore “populations of homes” aren’t subject to evolution.

So, are you on record as stating anything can happen in random explosions? If so, why can’t we manufacture cars by blowing up a junk yard?

No you mendacious troll, David Stanton never said any such thing. And again your analogies are less than useless as cars aren’t populations of organisms and random explosions pushing junk metal around aren’t equivalent to the many different types of random mutations that occur in DNA. I know you don’t care about rational discourse, but really, are you ever right about anything? I am beginning to wonder. You are a perfect sampling of the type of audience that J. Wells is trying to reach; an audience composed of the intractably ignorant.

Pole Greaser:

David Stanton:

Hey PG, perhaps you would care to answer the questions that Wells ignored. You know, the ones that were asked just before he went into his “you hate me” routine. If not, then people might get the impression that you are just trying to redirect the conversation here in order to draw attention away from the fact that Wells was completely wrong.

By the way, you haven’t answered the question about the difference between natural and artificial selection either. You just keep making the same statement over and over without any evidence. Here’s another question for you, if you “intelligently” select for one thing and inadvertantly also select for another thing at the same time, was that selection for the second thing “intelligent” as well? If so, how did the organism know the difference? If not, your assertation is refuted.

Well, that depends on whether the Bahrmin level. A house or can burn down by arson or lightning could strike it and it would make no difference to the house. By contrast, in order to build the house you need CSI, not just energy. No matter how big of an explosion you make a new house will not spontaneously assemble.

Pole Greaser:

David Stanton:

PG,

So, your answer seems to be that there is no difference. That’s what I thought. You lose. The “bahrmin level” doesn’t make any difference. Whether the selection favors increased complexity or not desn’t make any difference. You’re just plain wrong, period. You can keep saying it all you want and it still won’t be true.

By the way, thanks for ignoring the questions that were supposed to be the topic of this thread. Now everyone can see your true motivation in posting nonsense here.

So, are you on record as stating anything can happen in random explosions? If so, why can’t we manufacture cars by blowing up a junk yard?

Moron! Natural selection has nothing to do with explosions, cars, junkyards, or houses.

Come back when you can follow logic!

Henry J: The actual mutations would be spread out over a few billion years. That’s an average of less than one per year.

Do you mean the 10 to the 3,000,000,000th power number of mutations he was referring to? To play it safe before I bring that up to anyone, does this mean that these mutations would be spread over the roughly 3.85 billion years life has been on earth? He meant “1 followed by 3 billion 0’s,” if you spread this over the course of just under 4 billion years, it doesn’t quite sound very “reducible” (at least I think that’s what they would call it).

But I think he may have a hard time explaining this:

Though granted that’s a drastic oversimplification since DNA duplications, insertions, deletions, etc. are also involved.

I’m willing to assume that since he was only taking POINT mutations into account that the above basically makes his numbers invalid, since he’s (as you’ve said) oversimplifying just what kinds of mutations occur.

Will,

The argument that you’re referring to was illustrating the effects of selection; it wasn’t meant to be an exact model of biological evolution. I was simply pointing out that biological evolution was not compressed into one (or a few) generations. Alan wasn’t saying that biological evolution did that, so my point wasn’t in conflict with his.

Re “But I think he may have a hard time explaining this:”

I doubt that somebody with knowledge of the subject would have trouble with that. Basically that just means the size of the genome would have varied over those 3 to 4 billion years.

Oh, and by the way, Alan’s argument was in the “How stupid do they think we are?” thread, and this is the “Yes, they think we are really stupid!” thread.

Henry

faze, not phase

Bill Gascoyne:

Pole Greaser Wrote:

All intelligent intervention raises the level of CSI in the environment. Non-intelligence does not do this.

IOW, Greaser does think that bacteria respond differently to environmental changes caused by humans than to those caused by nature. Let’s do an experiment. Let’s create an artificial environment that mimics a natural environment and see if the bacteria respond any differently. Bets, anyone?

This experiment would fail becuase if the artificial environment mimics the natural one, the level of information in the artificial environment is no higher. Intelligence is capable of lowering the level of ionformation or keeping it the same, but nature can never raise the level of information–read Dembski for details. You lose

“Intelligence is capable of lowering the level of ionformation or keeping it the same, but nature can never raise the level of information–read Dembski for details. You lose”

Some days I miss when John Davison & Sal posted here. Their arguments were no better, but they could spell.

Heh. I was just thinking the other day that books like ‘Dune’ and Sherri Tepper’s ‘Grass’ (amazing book, by the way) have such simple planetary ecologies compared to the real thing. So much for “increased information”.

So, let me get this straight: humans insert more ‘information’ into a test area than ‘nature’? Let’s say the test area is an enclosed field. Is there more ‘information’ in the system if a human is watching it? Is there more ‘information’ if a human waters it than if it rains? How about if a human watches the field and prays for rain?

PG are your eyes brown? Just asking because you’re so full of it.

Pole Greaser: You have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Let’s take this back to evolution 101. 1) Animals produce more offspring than the environment can produce. 2) Animals compete for resources. 3) “Winners” of the competition tend to leave more offspring. 4) Animals NATURALLY vary. 5) Such variation is genetic. 6) Any heritable character that helps an animal compete will spread through a population because of the resulting variation in reproductive success. 7) Eventually such characters will be fixed in a population. This a mathematical truth that has been demonstrated so many times in both experimental and natural populations as to be a truism. Do you have a problem with this? If so, what?

Artificial selection is nothing more than a human “experiment” in this process. By denying this, you are denying the very foundation of the scientific method. Does it not strike you that physicists, engineers, chemists etc. also devise “artificial” experiments to test hypotheses about “natural” phenomena and mechanisms? Do you have a problem with experimentation as a part of the scientific method?

All of this is based on genetics. You assert through bald-faced ignorance (I assume actually that you are regurgitating what you read in some creationist literature) that genetic variation can neither arise nor increase, and that novel proteins cannot arise. This is simply not true. It has been intensively studied, and the mechanisms for producing variation and generating novel proteins with novel functions are known and demonstrated. The idea that “CSI” (yes, we do actually know exactly where that term comes from) cannot increase is nothing more than an assertion contrary to fact. The ID folks made it up. How do we know? Because, believe or not, a lot of people have studied the work, and the overwhelming consensus is that it is crap. This conclusion is based not on ideology, but on straightforward refutation. The assertions of Behe and Dembski are factually incorrect. The math of Dembski is so bad that refuting it is a trivial exercise. I have my first year graduate students do it in a single class, simply because is so amusing. And I don’t indoctrinate them – I simply present the problem and ask them to evaluate it. All of these points have been repeatedly addressed in detail on this web site and elsewhere.

1) Animals produce more offspring than the environment can produce.

Correction: Animals produce more offspring than the environment can support. Not that Pole Greaser is physically capable of understanding or caring this fact, that is.

Pole Greaser: So, are you on record as stating anything can happen in random explosions? If so, why can’t we manufacture cars by blowing up a junk yard?

Umm…so you are under the impression that explosions are the only manifestation of energy transference? For that matter, are you of the opinion that there is only a single way in which energy can be introduced into a system? Are you of the opinion that there is only a single way in which energy can be used in a system? When you get done with your strawman and are prepared to discuss the variety of systems and energy forms and uses in the natural world, let me know.

Pole Greaser said: Yes, Christians do think you are stupid.

Prof Weird : And YOU are authorized to speak for ALL Xtians now ?

So, ARE you authorized to speak for ALL Xtians ? Do you consider yourself to be the epitome of what all TRUEtm Xtians are to behave like ?

Pole Greaser : Darwinian retards don’t understand that any environment where humans are involved to select traits such as in hospitals or farms raises the level of complex specified information and is no longer random chance.

Prof Weird : And IDiots have yet to demonstrate HOW (or even IF) the presence of humans makes any frelling difference.

Well, if a volcano just launches a bunch of lava and soot it spreads all over the place and does not evolve into anything, and a volcanao has lots of energy, which is all the evolutionists claim is necessary for evolution to occur.

Who - except the strawmen of your imagination - CLAIM that only energy is necessary for evolution to occur ?

Evolution is what happens to LIVING THINGS. Or systems that have imperfect replication, heritability, and are subject to selective pressures. As volcanoes have NONE OF THESE TRAITS, your analogy thus fails.

By contrast, a human can the same materials and build buildings with them becuase of added CSI. That’s the difference.

Too bad that evolution can generate CSI, and thus do NOT require the intervention of a Magical Sky Pixie to install it.

Lava flows do NOT have imperfect replication, NOR heredity, NOR subject to selection. Thus, no one sane would assert they are analogous to evolution.

Are you actually dull-witted enough to ‘think’ that complexity MUST be installed all at once ? That living things had to fall together all at once PURELY by chance EXACTLY the way we see them today ? That is a level of willful ignorance even the Discovery Institute may find appalling.

Prof Weird : In other words, BACK UP THEIR WHINING WITH ACTUAL DATA.

See above. Belching lava from a volcano will never build a city. That’s the data.

Only if one is STUPID enough to think that a volcanic eruption is analogous to evolution. Its not. You lose.

Prof Weird : You’ve invoked ye olde “Voodoo Information Transfer” delusion. The silly idea that if a human was somehow involved in any way or any time, their intelligence/CSI somehow leaked into the system. As natural selection isn’t random chance, your blitherings be moot. And humans aren’t directly selecting FOR antibiotic resistance in hospitals - it would be better for the patients if the bacteria did NOT evolve resistance !

The involvement of human intelligence raises the level of ambient CSI in the environment

RiiIIiiiIIiight ! Like I said - it’s “VOODOO Information Transfer”. And this ‘CSI’ is a ghostly, ethereal product that cannot be detected until a gibbering twit like you or Dembski decrees it exists, right ?

How, EXACTLY, does human intelligence do ANYTHING to this ‘ambient CSI’ you CLAIM exists in the environment ?

Sounds like that pathetic dodge Dembski pulled when confronted with T-urf13 - a protein cobbled together from several different RNAs. He whined that the CSI ‘obviously’ went underground/undetectable, only to manifest later.

CSI is generated by evolution - random variations in the genome generate ‘complexity’, while NON-RANDOM FUNCTIONAL SELECTION generates the ‘specification’ in the derived quantity we call ‘information’.

Some antibiotics are NATURAL products, twit - streptomycin was produced by the fungus Streptomyces for probably hundreds of millions of years before humans found out about it. Penicillin was produced naturally by Penicillium fungi before humans noticed it.

And, since ‘CSI’ can evolve, your blitherings be as irrelevant as the rest of your mis-, anti-, and un-informed opinions.

Pole Greaser : Even something like PCR which only makes more of the same DNA strands requites intelligent input, yet the Darwinian faithful think all life just randomly assembled even without intelligent humans to add Taq polymerase. What morons!

Yes, as you so vigorously demonstrate, IDiots, creationuts, theoloons, and everyone else who has to misrepresent the ToE truly are morons. A bacteria dividing ‘only’ makes more of the same DNA strands, but does NOT require intelligent input; thus, REALITY refutes you.

The information was already present in the bacterial genome. No new information is created.

You changed the subject, buffoon - you ASSERTED that human intelligence was REQUIRED to synthesize the DNA. When shown that you were full of manure, you weaseled away with ‘no new information is created’.

A bacterium without a genome is not a bacterium.

And there are many ways to generate new information (once someone defines what it is in the context of biological systems).

“Not that Pole Greaser is physically capable of understanding or caring this fact, that is.”

Correction: “…understanding this fact, or caring about it…”

I suppose that if you are a carnivore, you might construe the environment as “producing offspring.” Nahhhhh. But silly typos like that give creationists ample opportunity to divert attention away from the issues.

mplavcan:

I suppose that if you are a carnivore, you might construe the environment as “producing offspring.” Nahhhhh. But silly typos like that give creationists ample opportunity to divert attention away from the issues.

Understood.

Creationists don’t seem to care that their whole song and dance routine is nothing but smoke and mirrors, and no actual dancers or even songs.

If you’ll pardon my mixing metaphors.

PG wrote:

“So, are you on record as stating anything can happen in random explosions? If so, why can’t we manufacture cars by blowing up a junk yard?”

No, I’m not. Are you? And when are you going to stop beating your wife?

You were proven to be wrong, the you just tried to change the subject again. You know, just like you tried to do in order to draw attention away from the fact that Wells was completely wrong also. I can hear the horse you rode in on Gish galloping away even now.

Robin Lee-Thorp:

Pole Greaser: So, are you on record as stating anything can happen in random explosions? If so, why can’t we manufacture cars by blowing up a junk yard?

Umm…so you are under the impression that explosions are the only manifestation of energy transference? For that matter, are you of the opinion that there is only a single way in which energy can be introduced into a system? Are you of the opinion that there is only a single way in which energy can be used in a system? When you get done with your strawman and are prepared to discuss the variety of systems and energy forms and uses in the natural world, let me know.

No, but all other forms of energy transfer require existing information which has to come from somewhere. Without information which comes from intelligence, the only thing that makes sense is chaotic gauge theory.

Sorry Pole Greaser, you forgot several other well-known energy transfer theories.…

1) Dorfanglian stunofler theory.

2) Electro-incentiant BDI.

3) Perineal flow theory.

and the ever present

4) Duclidean plasto-eocenotic hummifier theory.

Puh-lease. Do your homework!

Yeah.

And the proper framing of that earlier question is “In the unlikely event that you ever decide to announce that you are considering no longer beating your wife, what grotesque tissue of lies will you attempt to fob off on the public as an excuse?”

Pole Greaser said:

Robin Lee-Thorp:

Pole Greaser: So, are you on record as stating anything can happen in random explosions? If so, why can’t we manufacture cars by blowing up a junk yard?

Umm…so you are under the impression that explosions are the only manifestation of energy transference? For that matter, are you of the opinion that there is only a single way in which energy can be introduced into a system? Are you of the opinion that there is only a single way in which energy can be used in a system? When you get done with your strawman and are prepared to discuss the variety of systems and energy forms and uses in the natural world, let me know.

No, but all other forms of energy transfer require existing information which has to come from somewhere. Without information which comes from intelligence, the only thing that makes sense is chaotic gauge theory.

Utter and complete bs. Clearly you are no physicist. Aside from that, your response does not excuse your asinine statement regarding explosions.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ian Musgrave published on March 5, 2008 1:34 PM.

Cordova rewrites history (again) was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #100 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter